> What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court. Overall agree that we shouldn't be throwing members of Congress in jail over good

> What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court. Overall agree that we shouldn't be throwing members of Congress in jail over good-faith disagreements of constitutionality, etc. However, "Supreme Court oligarchy" is a stretch. Even if their rulings could send lawmakers to jail. Amending the Constitution is always an option, and that's a 100% Legislative (Federal + 38 States) action that neither the courts nor the President can block. With enough consensus, the Legislature (and by proxy, the electorate) technically have all the power. 1. Constitutional + simple majority + Presidential support = law. 2. Constitutional + 2/3 majority = law. 3. Unconstitutional + 2/3 majority + 38 states = law. But, broad consensus among the electorate is hard to come by these days, especially on contentious issues. Instead, both parties rail against "activist judges", stack the courts every opportunity they get, and regularly pass laws/programs with debatable constitutionality to constantly push the boundaries. This is likely the correct "play to win" strategy too. I just wish people played the game as intended. So, definitely understand the appeal for some sort of "punishment" against bad faith lawmaking, etc. Even if untenable in reality.